1to1 Magazine
Newsletters
Web Exclusives
Webinars & White Papers
Events
Resources
Uproar Over a Scarf
No doubt many of you have read about the controversy surrounding Rachael Ray, Dunkin’ Donuts, and Michelle Malkin over an wardrobe choice with alleged terrorist ties. For those who haven’t, Malkin, a conservative columnist ultra-radical nut, wrote a column comparing the scarf Ray wore in an online coffee ad to that worn by Muslim terrorists. Dunkin’ Donuts, looking to avoid controversy, pulled the ad to ward off further protests. However, the company may have created more problems than it solved by giving in so quickly over what isn’t such a black-and-white issue.
I first noticed the story not when conservatives like Malkin demanded the ad be removed, but when others started questioning Dunkin’ Donuts decision to remove it. Without debating the legitimacy of Malkin’s allegations and concerns, does a scarf chosen by a wardrobe person really detract that much from a brand’s image that the ad had to stop running? I think Dunkin’ Donuts reacted too quickly, overestimating the number of people who agree with Malkin’s ideology, and actually offended people who saw the attack on the scarf as racist and anti-Muslim. So I did what I’m sure thousands of other people did, and submitted a comment through DunkinDonuts.com. There was no option to check for “comment about bad publicity” to help direct the submission, and I figured it would go to an unassigned email address never to be heard from again.
Surprisingly, I did get a response from the company; although it reads like a typical “we need to get a form letter together because people keep sending these comments to us” email:
Thank you for sharing your comments. We always appreciate hearing from our customers. The intent of the online ad featuring Rachael Ray wearing a paisley silk scarf was to promote iced coffee. Given the surprising and truly unfortunate interpretation of this ad from some of our consumers, we decided to pull the ad and replace it with another as it is no longer serving its intended purpose, which was to simply promote our iced coffee---nothing more, nothing less.
At Dunkin' Donuts, we value all of our customers and remain steadfastly committed to making your experiences with us both memorable and pleasant. Thank you, again, for making us aware of your concerns; it is appreciated.
I can see both sides of the issue. Not both sides of Malkin’s argument, but both sides of Dunkin’ Donuts’ predicament. It didn’t want bad publicity to detract from its product if Malkin’s comments made headlines, but it got just as much bad publicity from pulling the ad.
What do you think the company should have done?
Allowing cavilers to determine the direction and expression of our culture, economy, legislation, justice system and media is to insult the American public and devalue the legacy of our founding fathers. Legitimizing the obsequiousness of Ms Malkin is to accord her the power and influence that she thinks she is due and obviously does not deserve.
Allowing cavilers to determine the direction and expression of our culture, economy, legislation, justice system and media is to insult the American public and devalue the legacy of our founding fathers. Legitimizing the obsequiousness of Ms Malkin is to accord her the power and influence that she thinks she is due and obviously does not deserve.
I lost a lot of respect for Dunkin Donuts and its decision. It shouldn't have buckled so quickly. No one thinks the company has any other motive other than to sell coffee, so taking it down just makes the company seem way too sensitive.